Tournament: yes | Round: 1 | Opponent: yes | Judge: yes

Link

Apocalypse discourse creates mass fear and anxiety

Quinby, Lee, 1994, Macaulay Honors College's Distinguished Lecturer, Anti-Apocalypse, Exercises in Geological Criticism,
U. S. society suffers from apocalyptic fits of two different kinds. First
AND
regard worldwide devastation as a necessary step for a transformation in human consciousness. 

Impact:

The fear of the apocalypse leads to helplessness means social change won't actually happen mean the K is a prior question; focus on a future that will never come means questions of oppression are always pushed to the side, turns aff because people are not given value.

Quinby, Lee, 1994, Macaulay Honors College's Distinguished Lecturer, Anti-Apocalypse, Exercises in Geological Criticism,
In the twentieth century, belief in a technological disaster of irrevocable proportions on the
AND
are merely among the unfortunate ones who will be here for the end. 

Alternative:

The narrative that tells us of this apocalyptic future must be rejected, there is no future apocalypse, we already live in the apocalypse. The alternative is to reject the traditional form of political rhetoric of this future apocalypse and form one that accepts an apocalyptic life.

Erik Swyngedouw (2013), professor of geography at the University of Manchester, Apocalypse Now! Fear and Doomsday Pleasures, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 24:1, 9-18, DOI: 10.1080/10455752.2012.759252
Against this cynical stand, the third, and for me proper, leftist response
AND
within this reality that political choices have to be made and sides taken.

Tournament: yes | Round: 1 | Opponent: yes | Judge: yes
Part 1 - Resolutional burdens

The aff only justifies the need for prohibition if they can prove that the harms in their case are inseparable from the production of nuclear power. Otherwise, those harms could be solved through regulations without prohibition. The aff only has ground to win on an advocacy that is a prohibition of nuclear power while the neg has ground to win on regulation. This is because regulations still allow the existence and production of nuclear power that include revisions and innovation whereas prohibition means halting the production immediately halting all potential progress. If the aff only regulates and does not prohibit, they are not meeting the resolution.
There is a difference in what is required to justify each- a prohibition is to forbid an action or activity by authority or law. In contrast, a regulation is an official rule or law that says how something should be done. The difference is about whether the law will permit any form of nuclear power whatsoever.
To prove that there ought to be be no nuclear power whatsoever requires that an issue to be presented that is inherent to nuclear power. Otherwise, the need to solve that harm would only justify a regulation because the problem could one day be separated from the production of nuclear power, thus solving the AFF harms. Therefore, the Affirmative burden is to prove that the harms identified in the AFF are necessarily inseparable from nuclear power. The failure to meet that burden means that the aff harms justify a solution that takes the form of a regulation. This is sufficient to negate. If I show they are theoretically separable from the production of nuclear power, then that justifies a regulation, and therefore you negate.

Part 2 - Offense
I advocate that instead of prohibiting the production of nuclear power, countries ought to enact regulations that only permits the production of nuclear power that only allows for nuclear power production does not do insert internal links to impacts here
Two reasons to negate under the burden structure:
First, as I will demonstrate later in the line-by-line,
Subpoint A) Prohibition kills research and development

Subpoint B) It is theoretically possible to develop nuclear power that is good under the AFF standard, which is a unique disadvantage to the AFF